Racism police rout debate

South African debate is now hugely compromised. It is generally next to impossible to have a meaningful discussion about identity-related issues without it devolving into a race debate.

As racial identity in SA‚ for the most part‚ is felt and not thought‚ the argument inevitably becomes fundamentalist and binary‚ compromise is eradicated and brute force – defined by the degree to which offence is felt by one party or another – becomes the determining factor. And‚ as so much debate turns on identity-related issues‚ it consumes public discussion.

The problem is worsened by the ANC‚ which has for decades now made racism the centrepiece of its political message. It provides the backdrop to debate‚ and its influence is either directly injected into discussion via outrage and condemnation or it seeps in through inference and implication. The ANC’s grand frame of reference – the opposition‚ the free-market‚ civil society and the media are racist – constitutes the parameters for South African debate.

The occasional blatant racism (too infrequent to suggest a normal distribution of this kind of prejudice but less frequent than convention would have it) acts as a catalyst‚ reinforcing the frame of analysis and hardening fundamentalism. Each incident becomes proof of a general thesis; a weapon to be wielded. But between these acts‚ there exists a relentlessly continuing‚ obsessive and ill-defined drive to “discover” and “reveal” racism in all its other forms: the subtle‚ the suggested‚ the inferred and the unconscious.

This pursuit is sometimes explicitly stated. There are many self-appointed thought police who act like an unimpeachable moral authority; some kind of racial inquisition‚ who have bestowed upon their personage the title “grand revealer”. Their job is to “out” people – racists – and to encourage the mob to devour them. They fuel outrage‚ drive condemnation‚ regulate (mis)understanding and rarely encourage perspective.

More importantly‚ they are often wrong‚ but their victims‚ whether violent thugs or clueless mugs or just misunderstood‚ experience their wrath absolutely and in equal measure.

Much life is breathed into this angry apparition by those less courageous who use euphemism and implication to relay their message. They animate it‚ and it feeds off their passive aggression. They are by far the more pernicious of the two. The game they play is subtler: damnation by inference. Which is next to impossible to counter, for just to question the parameters of their inquiry is to paint oneself guilty. Any objection is an admission. The court has spoken.

Ask yourself this: how many public commentators in SA have been accused of racism? And who are they? If you are of a particular race‚ to comment on South African politics is to be labelled a racist. It is inevitable. As not everyone is a racist‚ the frequency and ease with which the slur is applied has rendered the claim empty to many.

To be sure‚ there are no doubt genuine cases of recalcitrance or bigotry or prejudice. When called out‚ the author merely shrugs a shoulder. It is indistinguishable from the response they received the day before‚ to something perfectly fair and balanced. It destroys the possibility of introspection‚ this universal and all-encompassing crime.

There exists a huge implication to all of this. SA’s grand and diverse problems have all been systematically reduced to a single‚ solitary concern: race. We cannot see the wood for the trees.

Poverty‚ the economy‚ education‚ service delivery‚ all these things and many more have become nothing more than platforms to be used not to discuss or interrogate the real concern‚ but to reintroduce a discussion about race. The marginalised‚ the weak and disenfranchised pay the highest price. An obsession with race has pushed their concerns ever further down the national agenda.

To make this argument‚ indeed to prove it true‚ one must present reparations. Here they are: racism is a serious problem in SA and racial identities are fraught. These things deserve serious introspection‚ analysis and debate. Those who indulge prejudice should not be tolerated. This is incontestable.

Just as true‚ however‚ is that there are far greater injustices in SA today. They hurt a lot more than emotions. They end lives or curtail them‚ they brutalise bodies and destroy opportunity and they inflict themselves on the weak and compromised. Race and racism are part of understanding the problem. But they do not explain the thief in the cabinet, the factory that closes‚ the bill in parliament‚ the broken water pipe‚ the absent teacher or the phone that rings off the hook.

So long as racism remains the defining trait of our debate‚ the ANC‚ the great liberator‚ remains the political authority.

Meanwhile, forces are gathering that if allowed to coalesce with this race obsession will surely destroy South Africa. And‚ make no mistake‚ these forces have already been welcomed into our house.

Populism and demagoguery are on the rise. They have a formal political home in the Economic Freedom Fighters. Outside of politics‚ they run through the streets unchecked. They have in South Africa three natural stimulants – race‚ decay and authoritarianism – and if ingested they will be fairly unstoppable.

In the grand South African non-debate, where everything and anything lives or dies by race‚ they have an environment in which they will grow at an exponential rate.

The South African soul is insecure and angry. It needs some serious therapy‚ and everyone has a role to play in that endeavour. Empathy and compassion‚ sympathy and understanding should guide us. At the same time‚ there is much to be rightly angry about: prejudice‚ injustice and inequality are rife.

One needs a balance. Just moral outrage at wrong‚ empathy for the less fortunate. The principles that define freedom help us determine such judgments.

At the moment, therapy is over. Anger is king. Emotions dominate the debate.

Finally‚ that is how all debate will end.